Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 404
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Beer's Settlement, NY USA
    Posts
    1,095

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    You wrote:
    the "scientists" do not keep an open mind.
    I wrote: that isn't true.

    And it isn't. Science is about keeping an open mind. People that work in the scientific community every day like myself, know this. Once you make your mind up about something, you are useless in scientific inquiry. Once you trim the facts to fit your theory, your reputation as a scientist is shot.

    One of the things we do on a weekly basis is to read a recent paper in our field and try to find all the faults with it. It is customary to try to shoot holes in a scientific hypothesis. We do this to each other and to our own theories. If the theory holds up under fire, it's a good one. If it doesn't it either needs to be revised or pitched out.

    There was a theory that neonicotinoids were causing colony collapse in Europe. A lot of beekeepers wanted that theory proved! But the facts wouldn't fit into the theory. Sure, neonics caused some bee die offs, but they didn't cause most die offs. Turned out, the hives were all in pretty bad shape due to varroa mites, and were full of miticide residues.

    You wrote:
    comments like the above, based on YOUR perception
    Of course it's based on my perception. What else do I have to use? We are all blessed with perception and thought. I perceive people criticizing scientists for being close minded and I think, that's not true. It's just the opposite. That's what I think. I don't know why others think differently. That's what we are trying to find out.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Amador County, Calif
    Posts
    3,115

    Cool Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    NUTRA-BEE feed supplements

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Covington, Ga, USA
    Posts
    1,549

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    Wel, as we are all entitled to our opinions, I have seen it exactly the opposite....and you have to respect that. I am not faulting you or anyone else, its just been an observation. Where you make your mistake is making the assumption that you can roll us all up into one....and you did....and oddly for some of us, that makes us a little less inclined to listen. i emailed you and asked for your papers. i did not critisize them, and thought they were well written. There is a really fine line here that we all try to walk, but you have to make sure that you don't ball us up all into one. As such, we have to make sure that we do the same. you have more than likey forgotten more than I have learned thus far about beeking, lets not mistake that and dont think you have some respect for your knowledge.....but just watch the generalizations......and the rational....I already have a 10 yr old who thinks he knoes more than me....and btw, i am one of the most open minded people you will meet. I look at every aspect. I just know what i have seen
    "You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same."

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Beer's Settlement, NY USA
    Posts
    1,095

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    WLC writes:
    That's an example of 'metaphysical pathos'.
    response:

    Is it likely that a person who throughout his whole adult life had been devoted to a powerful, quasi-religious view of the world, which he sought to disseminate by means of innumerable writings and addresses, would be led by that view to do serious and important scientific work? I agree that it is not likely -- unless the person in question was an able scientist who was clear about what he was trying to do. Huxley was that.

    There are some precedents. The history of science presents a number of cases in which important scientific work was inspired by a dubious metaphysic, an outstanding example being the influence of Platonism on Renaissance scientists. It was Galileo's Platonic vision of the Book of Nature being "written in the language of mathematics" (how many biologists would agree with that?) that inspired his grand achievement of mathematicizing motion. And it was Kepler's mystical, Platonic conception of celestial harmony, which to us today seems so outlandish, that helped to lead him to the laws of planetary motion that constituted a major element in the Copernican Revolution.

    Julian Huxley and Biological Progress
    ROBERT M. GASCOIGNE
    School of Science and Technology Studies
    University of New South Wales

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Columbia county, New York, USA
    Posts
    1,535

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    Quote Originally Posted by peterloringborst View Post
    There was a theory that neonicotinoids were causing colony collapse in Europe. A lot of beekeepers wanted that theory proved! But the facts wouldn't fit into the theory. Sure, neonics caused some bee die offs, but they didn't cause most die offs. Turned out, the hives were all in pretty bad shape due to varroa mites, and were full of miticide residues.
    I've always thought it a little odd that varroa gets labeled as the 'cause' of death so often. When a stray dog becomes ill or injured, say an infected tooth or something, and is left to fend for itself, that animal will slowly become compromised. The infection may spread to other parts, the dog won't be able to eat as well, it becomes a victim of malnutrition, other infections. It's immune system breaks down. Fleas, ticks, mange, intestinal worms and other parasites move in and begin to have a field day on the poor animal and weaken it yet more. It finally dies. A casual observer might look at the dying dog and conclude it died of a rampant infestation of fleas and ticks. I would find it perfectly natural for varroa mites to have a population explosion and thrive on bee colonies that were already weakened by the chemical soup they were forced to survive in and eat from- including, ironically, miticides. Parasites typically move in and deal the final blow to an already sick or weakened victim. To then name the parasite as the principal cause of death might be missing something important. Not saying you are doing that here Peter, but lots of people do seem to be seeing varroa as 'the' cause of death when in fact varroa might be just the last inevitable blow in a series of factors that are slowly killing the bees. Varroa as undertakers, if you will.
    Sorry, I know that's veering a bit off the intended thread subject.
    The little bee returns with evening's gloom,
    To join her comrades in the braided hive... -Tennyson

  6. #26

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    I would welcome anyone interested in a scientific approach to working with bees to join me in the Honey Bee Science Network.

    It's purpose is exactly that to get everyday beekeepers to engage in observational studies that can be shared and participated in by others similarly interested and willing to be involved.

    Big Bear
    No, I am NOT a bee "Keeper". Anything I post is just my opinion. Take it easy and think for yourself.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Beer's Settlement, NY USA
    Posts
    1,095

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    Sorry, I know that's veering a bit off the intended thread subject.
    No, it's a valid point. My example was an oversimplification, I know. This is the real problem we are up against, though. It's like one of those murder mysteries where the dead guy was shot, stabbed, strangled, poisoned, and drowned. Evidence points to him being killed over and over again by various people. Who gets the murder rap?

    Worse still, our bees are dead but there is no body! (They always play that up in the news: no corpses found). Yet even so, with the confusing signals, and the mixed up results, one thing leaps out a you: NO ONE THING! Seems like every time somebody gets a clear idea about what it might be somebody else steps in to say it ain't so.

    No wonder people start to mistrust scientists,-- and news reporters. Can't they get anything right? Is this what we pay them to do, confuse us? It's like the weather reports. They are almost never right, so people tend to get a bit jaded. Heck, I can predict better than that. But when there is a hurricane coming, everybody wants to know what the weather service says ...

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Beer's Settlement, NY USA
    Posts
    1,095

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    Quote Originally Posted by Omie View Post
    I've always thought it a little odd that varroa gets labeled as the 'cause' of death so often.
    This came out this winter:

    Ernesto Guzman-Novoa, et al. 2010. Varroa destructor is the main culprit for the death and reduced populations of overwintered honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies in Ontario, Canada. Apidologie

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Beer's Settlement, NY USA
    Posts
    1,095

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    Quote Originally Posted by devdog108 View Post
    I already have a 10 yr old who thinks he knoes more than me....
    Yeah, you know what they say: hire a teenager while they still know it all. Me, I started out years ago with nothing. And, I still have most of it left.

    You know, there are hardly any scientists on these bee forums. Why? Because of the firestorm that always ensues when they open their mouths.

    I started this thread to talk about that, why is it, what can we do about it. Already you and others have made it plain I have put my foot in it.

    Guess what, I expected that. But you got to give me credit for having the guts to go ahead and open this can of worms. I know Barry would like to see it discussed openly.

    Personally, I prefer an in depth discussion to the usual back and forth one liners. Others may wish I would shut up. At any rate, I believe you will ultimately come to realize I keep going at this because I care.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Covington, Ga, USA
    Posts
    1,549

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    Peter, there is no doubt the reasoning..in my mind...that you open threads like this is because you actually do care. Its to make people think, and I appreciate that. BUT the door swings both ways. I love the discussions, but do not like to be attacked becuase I am wrong or have my own opinions. I would agree that the reasonong behind the "scientists not being here" is because they do get hammered. Heck, I get hammered when I am wrong and I do expect it. Again, I respect your ability to open threads and get the communication going, I really do, but there are so many personalities that we should all back down a little and listen. I try to do that oddly, and i try to be very objective. I have made NO suggestion that you have your foot into anything, I did however ask you not to generalize me into the open public forum that you see, because it would be incorrect. And if you did have your foot into anything, your opinion would matter just as much if not more because you get to see both sides. SOmetimes its not what you say, its how it is said.....
    "You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same."

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,183

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    Quote Originally Posted by peterloringborst View Post
    Who has power here? What power do I have, other than a well honed ability to read and write?
    I'm thinking in a broad sense here. "Science" has the power. It has institutions, money, facilities, published papers, etc. versus the lowly beekeeper who has his observations. I think that is the general feeling that people share, true or not.
    Regards, Barry

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Beer's Settlement, NY USA
    Posts
    1,095

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    Quote Originally Posted by devdog108 View Post
    I would agree that the reasonong behind the "scientists not being here" is because they do get hammered
    But wait, scientists expect to get hammered. It's called peer review. They just don't tolerate being hammered for being scientists. They don't have the patience to go up the whole anti-science wall of conjecture.

    I have a great deal of admiration for writers like John McPhee, Annie Dillard, Stephen Jay Gould, etc. who try to make science understandable and interesting to regular people. If people only knew!

    The whole tone thing, I don't get. People criticize the tone of my writing. Perhaps if I mispelled words more often, they would trust me more? Or use expressions like "her and I".

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Amador County, Calif
    Posts
    3,115

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    "Science" has the power. It has institutions, money, facilities, published papers, etc. versus the lowly beekeeper who has his observations..
    Yes, only observations, but thousands of them .
    NUTRA-BEE feed supplements

  14. #34
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Covington, Ga, USA
    Posts
    1,549

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    Quote Originally Posted by peterloringborst View Post
    But wait, scientists expect to get hammered. It's called peer review. They just don't tolerate being hammered for being scientists. They don't have the patience to go up the whole anti-science wall of conjecture.

    The whole tone thing, I don't get. People criticize the tone of my writing. Perhaps if I mispelled words more often, they would trust me more? Or use expressions like "her and I".
    Its not even the tone Peter, again, its how its said, not what you say.....and I have seen it over and over thoughout some of the debates. I would NEVER hammer someone for being a scientist as long as his mind was open, just as mine is. If her is willing to listen, scientist or not, he is good in my book.....hence my sig!
    Last edited by devdog108; 05-02-2010 at 04:15 PM. Reason: whoops
    "You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same."

  15. #35

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    On one hand Peter, you agree with me that anyone can be a 'scientist' yet the only credibility you seem to give is to the 'professional' scientist with a degree and a budget.

    You try to proclaim yourself as that beekeeper who is a scientist, but laud all your education and lab work as your reason for credibility.

    Micheal Bush has written extensively on his own site and on threads here in great detail of his experiences and experiments yet you have dismissed him on more than one occasion, seemingly because his work wasn't published or supported by some think tank. He is only one example, there are many others.

    You can't play both sides of the field.

    either you agree that anyone who follows the Scientific method, professional or amateur is a credible source, or you think that only those with degrees and budgets are 'real' scientists.

    I hold many of the people in this forum in high regard because of their willingness to 'expose themselves' in terms of sharing their experiences and day to day observations of working with honey bees. many of them are very articulate and document their activities very well, yet hold no degrees that they have made public anyway.

    Everyone on this forum can be a beekeeper and a scientist simultaneously, however, one need not be a scientist to be a beekeeper and need not be a beekeeper to be a scientist.

    I think in general, most people see the proclaimed 'scientists' you mention, such as the weather forecasters, as academic isolationists with limited understanding of the day to day working of the world.

    well, as usual, I've done it again and stepped way over the thresh hold when Ishould have kept my yap shut.


    Big Bear
    No, I am NOT a bee "Keeper". Anything I post is just my opinion. Take it easy and think for yourself.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Beer's Settlement, NY USA
    Posts
    1,095

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    You try to proclaim yourself as that beekeeper who is a scientist, but laud all your education and lab work as your reason for credibility.
    Good grief. Is this another discussion that degenerates into who do I think I am? Moderators, help us out here. By the way, I have no degrees other than a AS in Graphic Design.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Millbury, MA, USA
    Posts
    1,653

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    Getting back to the topic at hand instead of personal attacks. How else would one monitor virus levels without the aid of a scientist. And if you think that's not important you really have your head in the sand. I am not opposed to "new" [really old] ideas like natural cell [I'm using them] but there is so much evidence that Varroa AND virus are what cause many losses of hives that it makes no sense to me not to know as much as possible about what's going on in the hive. We can look 100 times a day, but you'll never see a virus. However, you might see the results of one in the spring when you open that deadout.

  18. #38

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    no no no. this is not about personal attacks.

    Peter asked the question about why so called 'scientists' get so much grief.

    in order to understand this, we need to understand what is a 'scientist.

    Peter in one post says he is a scientist and refers back to his education and lab work to support it.

    My point is that one need not have the college and funded labs to be considered a scientist. after which, Peter claimed to agree with me that anyone following the Scientific method could be considered a 'scientist'.

    so, I am merely asking him to clarify his position on how he defines a 'scientist' since he agreed to one thing, but described another.

    sorry anyone has to ask you to clarify yourselves folks, but that''s what happens in these kind of threads , isn't it?

    And, since you brought yourself into the discussion by labeling yourself as a scientist Peter, I think it's quite appropriate to ask you to clarify how you came to that identification.


    it's kind of funny how when you demand others to clarify themselves, it's only to further a discussion, but when you are asked to clarify, you call it a personal attack.

    Big Bear
    No, I am NOT a bee "Keeper". Anything I post is just my opinion. Take it easy and think for yourself.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Covington, Ga, USA
    Posts
    1,549

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    We know Cam, but all too often we a grouped...profiled....and when we ask tons of questions, all of a sudden we are attacking or hammering. I am with you, I want to know the ins and outs, but the 1000's of observations as Keith stated cannot be thrown by the wayside....those darned bees do not read the books we do no matter how hard i try.
    "You laugh at me because I am different, but I laugh at you because you are all the same."

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,050

    Default Re: An ideal beekeepers' world

    "Getting back to the topic at hand instead of personal attacks. How else would one monitor virus levels without the aid of a scientist."

    All that you really need for the scientist to do is develop the protocol for virus detection.

    Any one of you could be trained to do those tests (with a few exceptions ).

    The equipment and reagents are available for purchase. Or, you can collect the sample, and send it out to a lab.

    Analytical work doesn't have to be done by an individual with a degree and lab experience. It just requires training (and $).

Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads